Welcome!
Hello, PeterStJohn, and welcome to Wikipedia! ...[elided conventional advice] Again, welcome! Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting us to the vandal edit on the Neuron article. I have reverted it. You can too, as with experience you will recognize it quickly. The great majority of vandalism is done by anonymous IP address editors. Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, but we already have something similar ;) Have a look at meta:Toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}} the page Special:WantedPages or [Special:WantedPages] appears to down; it shows zero counts. There is a note on the talk page from yesterday, so the failure seems to be about a day old. I don't have access to IIRC from this machine and didn't know a better mechanism for bringing this to the attention to someone more clueful, other than 'helpme'. Thanks. Peter H. St.John, M.S. 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved PeteScratchPad to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad. Personal pages are perfectly OK but they must have the correct names. -- RHaworth 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Responded here. ike9898 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Awarded to Pete St.John for making me laugh out loud. Great humor and witty observations are always appreciated - keep it up! -- Satori Son 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
I'm still laughing about
this one! Keep up the good work and feel free to move this to your user page if you'd like. --
Satori Son
21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I'm also concerned about the Blue collar article, as I think it may be a direct cut and paste from the website about it. This could be a copyright violation in addition to sounding like an advertisement. What do you think we should do?-- Analogue Kid 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, you don't have to pipelink every time you link to everything with spaces in the name. Sample Article will land at Sample_Article, and doesn't require any piping. And mass will go to Mass just fine. The Wiki software always assumes an initial capital, so you don't have to worry about that either. ♠ P M C♠ 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
you’re right, intuition is tricky. even having slightly “improved” my intuition based on already knowing about the birthday paradox, mine still broke down, i guess due to the size of the numbers. there are, according to the main page, 1,653,406 articles. i hit “random” roughly 250 times. if you want to test your own intuition, guess what the odds are for a repeat? the answer (assuming i did the math right) is visible if you highlight between the two x’s below.
x 1.88% x
not too likely, but not lottery-ticket-buying-inducing, either.
thanks for the interesting comment. - barneca 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, this was a regular article in regular article space when I deleted it. NawlinWiki 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for your help. I was only looking at the last part of the sentence rather than the whole. The only thing I don't think is good is the pronunciation of GUI because there's really the spelling it out technique, and that's what got me. It's more of like a region's pronunciation rather than a generic one. Also, there's only one GUI per operating system. Other than that, yeah, it was a sticky fix and I've learned from it, and will let it be. Thanks for notifying me so I would know in the future to look at the whole rather than just a part of the sentence. -- Bookinvestor 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the capitalization, as it appears to be standard on wikipedia for the links section to be headed "External links". It is stated in wikipedia's Manual of Style.
TubularWorld 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick fix to the article to give his exact position & show his awards--articles like this are likely to be deleted by some of the people around here these days--you should probably add some refs to his best known papers. DGG ( talk) 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was feeling a bit befuddled by the continued insistence that I was being biased when I'm keenly aware of issues in biographies of living persons and try to report only what happened in the most neutral voice possible. Honestly, I wasn't even alive when Watergate happened, and I'm not that interested in it or anything. Just trying to keep things up to date here. I appreciate you backing me up, guess we'll just wait and see what happens.-- Analogue Kid 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to my error. I hope it is repaired now. Larry R. Holmgren 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I might apply the knife a little too liberally, but if it's worth expanding, someone else will come along and expand it, and hopefully that person won't be in the PR department. :P I cut Blue Collar Computing way back, as well. The text added had been somewhat de-POV'd, but it still read like a press release, if a slightly less enthusiastic one. kmccoy (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. The first block was only for 3 hours. This one is 24 hours. Kukini hablame aqui 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad you spotted the edit conflict and fixed it up. Cheers. Robert Brockway 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I watch the Columbus article, so I've been seeing this develop over some days. I decided that it was time to jump in, since both sides had some good points but I agreed with the majority — not to mention the idea of consensus :-) Nyttend 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You left the following message for this IP address (128.100.68.211) :
This is a public computer, so I'm unsure to what vandalism you're referring, but if you have a concern about vandalism you should definitely state what the problem is and perhaps link to the relevant page. Then perhaps someone will acknowledge your complaint and report it to some appropriate administrators, or at least make it known among frequent users of this computer. 128.100.68.211 09:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Mathematicians are getting slammed at the Deletion Review for Erdos Numbers, because people are voting to "endorse" (erdos numbers) but "endorse" means "endorse the deletion". I think you want to overturn, but only for Erdos numbers < some maximum. Thanks at least for caring, it's a mess and we need help. Pete St.John 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, two remarks. Firstly, keep Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind (I see Jc37 already mentioned this, but it bears repeating). Secondly, in reply to your remark on KSmrq's talk page: everybody can comment at the Deletion Review, not only administrators. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter: Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. To be honest, it was never a big deal for me—and it obviously is for those who care passionately about such things—so I'm happy for the category to be reinstated. After all, it doesn't hurt anything, does it! :) MeegsC | Talk 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello PeterStJohn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, after your advice about canvassing, Brownhairedgirl formally accused me of unethical canvassing, see User_talk:PeterStJohn#ANI_re_your_canvassing. I have rebutted at the link she gave. I don't have experience with wiki disputes (arbitration?) and would very much appreciate your advice about what mechanism I should seek for help. I myself believe that Brownhairedgirl has not acted in good faith, but regardless of that, I seek something like equal representation. Please let me know what I can, may, or should do to defend myself, and seek redress.
Whew. There's been a lot of text about this. Let me finish reading, and I'll get back to you soon. - jc37 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
At this writing, the vote at the deletion review is 11 "endorse" (leave the category deleted) and 19 "overturn" (restore the category). The latter includes my vote, once I realized that anyone can vote (votes are really "comments" in a conventional format). This may not get us the category back, but I think it's worthwhile to send a message, that a large user group is disappointed by the administrative fiat against a plain consensus, not merely the whims of a special interest group. Pete St.John 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this here. Wikipedia does have some element of politics, but not in the way you are trying to implement. There was no "plain consensus" about these categories; both sides have points, and the situation is not clear cut. Moreover, everyone is working for what they think is the best outcome. I'm not involved in the discussion, although I am both a mathematician and an admin. I hope you will hear my advice. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As per the above criticism. Currently, the vote is 24 overturn (restore the deleted Erdos Number categories) and still 11 endorse (leave the category deleted). All 5 of the new contributions are to overturn (which may lend credence to the "canvassing" critique), although at least one of those was monitoring the deletion reviews, not the math project. I'm particulary gratified by "outsider" editors concurring that the admin's deletion was not in accordance with policy regarding respecting consensus. Presumably the effects of canvassing will be considered to be quelled as time passes and more admins and editors weigh in on acount of the review and censure activities, and not on account of my canvassing or whatever the opposition may or may not have done or be doing. Pete St.John 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
We get it - you have strong feelings about an ongoing DRV. However, please stop canvassing, campaigning, and "getting out the vote" at WikiProject Mathematics. It's well within accepted practice to leave a neutral message notifying a Wikiproject of an AfD or DRV, but you've gone well beyond that and are campaigning actively and disruptively. More importantly, perhaps, you've gone beyond the point where you're doing your cause any favors. I'm going to ask you to please stop any and all posts related to the DRV and confine whatever comments you have to the DRV page itself. The Wikiproject has been suitably notified, and the discussion on AN/I will attract additional opinions. If you continue campaigning, vote-counting, and aruging your case outside the DRV, particularly using the sort of uncivil language cited by User:BrownHairedGirl, then you're likely to be blocked at least for the duration of the deletion review for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell Talk 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked until the DRV discussion is closed. - jc37 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, at my talk page you wrote:
I take it that your opinion is that I am (to some significant extent) disrupting Wikipedia. These points:
Thanks. Pete St.John 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In a vote, such as real-world politics, only the final numbers matter, and vigorous efforts to bring in votes for your side (within the law) are acceptable. Wikipedia does not work that way; matters are decided either by consensus or by Jimbo. Consensus requires a process in which we get a feel for the views of the community. Ideally, we would announce as widely as possible: "A discussion is in progress; come have your say", then sit back and listen.
The ideal is rarely met, so we try to balance out distorting influences. Your exhortations to overturn the Erdős number category deletions will be treated as a distortion, and will cause voices that support overturning to be given less weight. If you persist, it also causes people to view you as an unreliable source. In other words, the more you lobby, the more it hurts your cause!
In fact, the DRV uses the consensus process to review the deletion process. It is not about the merits of deleting or keeping the categories. It is about the debate and the close. Did the decision involve too much shouting? Was consensus found? Was it followed? Was policy followed? In short, the review seeks to decide if the process of deciding on deletion meets Wikipedia standards. Repetitive lobbying is frowned upon for deletion debates, but it happens; for deletion reviews, which attempt to correct for such debates, lobbying is one of the worst things you can do.
It gets worse. The cause you support involves WikiProject Mathematics, so fairly or not your behavior shapes Wikipedia-wide perceptions of the mathematics community. If your zeal causes you to be perceived as a crank, some of that will spill over to cause all mathematicians and any cause we support to be taken less seriously.
Please, for your own good, for the good of your cause, for the good of the mathematics community, and for the good of Wikipedia, think about what I have said and act appropriately.
(No reply is necessary; but please reply here if you must.) -- KSmrq T 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Have a nice weekend! -- Ramsey2006 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My advice at this point is that you just make your points on the page of the new DRV. I would also suggest that any comments that you make be made at the first level (ie: at the bottom of the discussion without indentation). Don't let yourself be baited into a back and forth with either SparsityProblem or BrownHairedGirl. (Note that I have not replied to BHG's indented response to me. If I do feel the need to reply to a particular point of either of them, I will do so as a comment at the first level, without indentation.) The tactics of both of them seems to be to attempt to fill whatever page the discussion is occuring on with an everywhere dense set of repeditive comments. No point in doing anything that will help to facilitate that strategy.
I also suggest that nobody be notified individually of this new DRV. I did put a notice on the wikipedia logic project talk page and the talk page of the 3rd CfD discussion, and the math project has been notified. But I have avoided even notifying you of the overturning of the overturn after my initial note, figuring that you would find out on your own when you get back, and to avoid any accusations from BHG or Sparsity.
At this point, I would think that any closing admin would be well aware of the existence of previous discussions in the previous DRV, the 3 CfD's and the discussion on the talk page of the 3rd CfD. User:Kbdank71 himself has rather amusingly and ironically pointed out himself a rather blatant flaw in one of his own stated reasons for deleting the categories without consensus here: [1] This has not escaped notice, as several comments on the page seem to be making reference to it, some more directly than others. -- Ramsey2006 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:KSmrq to keep thread here)
Thanks for notifying me that after the Deletion Review was overturned, it was then rescinded. I appreciate all the recent advice about what I was doing wrong, but in the face of this scale (and energy) of attack, I really could use advice about what I am permitted to do to defend against this attack. For example, can I, or should I, ask for arbitration? I can't believe that I'm not allowed to seek help, but must wait for others to notice I need it. And I do mean me personally, now I have to defend myself, not just the mathematician user community. Pete St.John 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, I see at the archived ANI concerning me, that
Am I correct that you archived the ANI item at this point, and your final comment is in the nature of "closing"? I'll be trying to work out the chronology of: warning me about campaigning, my responses (at each stage), warning me about banning, the opening of the ANI, admin actions on the Deletion Reviews, and this ANI getting archived with that conclusion. Roughly, all this happened withing a period of four days. I'm watching this page but you are welcome to move this to my page according to your preference. Thanks, Pete St.John 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a cross-posting with my own talk page:
Again, cross-posted:
Thanks v much for your kind note on my talk page, which I missed in the deluge. I started to write a quick reply, but since I'm not much good at brevity, it ended up being rather a long one. If you have a spare week or two, you might like to take a peep: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#One_small_concilliatory_note.
Thanks again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I can provide detailed information (with citations) of the application of Genetic Algorithms in hardware bug finding. However, I am working full time and currently very busy, this means I'll be able to come back to this issue on the weekend. Meanwhile, why not keep my edit and tag it with "citation needed"?. Thanks.---- A. S. Aulakh Talk 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and interesting discussion. I have read your input on GA and very imprest, it's nice to meat some one how seems to like it as much as I do :) GA Fantastic ( talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In your response to the Quackwatch RfC, you made a suggestion to use original research in the Quackwatch article. It's a strange recommendation, don't you think? Ante lan talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
I hereby award the Barnstar of Peace to PeterStJohn who helped negotiate a hopefully peaceful resolution to a longstanding debate. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
I really appreciate what you're trying to do with comments such as this [2]. You're trying to calm the situation, that's clear. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you remove and apologize for the following, "I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive" and "(over and over again; which is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing|tendentious)".
I suggest you delete your /ScratchPad notes about me, and discuss the matters with me instead. I hope this is specific enough for you. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did you receive this appeal for help that you refer to? ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As you claim here, it would be nice if you provided the diff. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. However, this is Wikipedia and criticisms of people's ideas and attempts happen all the time. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. I note that you had no way of knowing that the consensus was fake as you did not know the personalities or the sides involved at the time. You seem to make a singular point that people should be aware that QW is not peer-reviewed because QW discusses peer-review itself: however, such a criticism is not good for Wikipedia unless it can be directly sourced. I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot or some other blog-forum. That seems to fly in the face of all sourcing conventions at Wikipedia You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain? ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Citing a reference for my claim that you accused me of tendentious editting. I overgeneralized the word; using it to characterize your characterization of me. So I'm trying to go through QW talk to piece together specifics, then explain myself at the ANI with them. One might note, that "I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot" could be construed as implying my contribution was contrary to wiki policy, an example of what I overgeneralized as "tendentious" (when really I was thinking "contentious", btw). You may have had a good point there.
2. Citing a reference to the "request for help" I mentioned. It's this RFC. You may notice that my first edit to QW:talk was in the section labelled "A user has requested...".
3. Are you accusing me of being an alt-med-POV pusher?
4. I do, in fact, know why I have problems with you. (By knowledge I refer to sporadic proximate causes, in your editting, which I am working to document; I only have hypotheses about your philosophy or raison detre). I'm working on documenting it. Pete St.John ( talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Responses:
Cheers,
ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have restated the different versions in a section at the bottom of the page. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A example where "to represent" ≠ to "be representative of": in a logic formula a tilde may represent negation, but it is not representative of negation. Although there is overlap in the meanings, I see the following difference when an entity represents / is representative of a group. The adjective "representative" followed by "of" suggests that the entity representing the group somehow typifies it. This is especially clear when an entity is said not to be representative of a group. This suggestion is not present, or much less so, when a form of the verb "to represent" is used.
The combination "If [hypothesis], then [consequence]", all in the indicative mood, is standard use in mathematical discourse, and generally completely accepted (except by you). The subjunctive "were" signals a counterfactual (as opposed to merely hypothetical) situation; its use for a non-counterfactual protasis is often regarded as ungrammatical; see Subjunctive#To express a hypothesis. The word "if" neutrally introduces a protasis; "when" unnecessarily suggests a temporal aspect and is definitely much less usual in mathematical discourse. -- Lambiam 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary has: "A number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function." Do you feel it would help to replace "to be representative of" by "to typify"? I don't think this verb has a clear connotation of membership. --
Lambiam
22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit looks to be escalating problems with me on other people's talk pages. Please consider refactoring: [6] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I really didn't mean to change your page, I thought I was at QW page at the time and I guess I didn't go back to the page when I linked to yours to see what it was about. Thanks for pointing it out. If I do bloopers of any kind please don't ever hesitate in letting me know. I take suggestion and info too so I don't repeat and/or I get more opinions. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please consider refactoring: [7] -- Ronz ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed your comment as canvassing [8]. Further, it is an inappropriate forum for discussing other editor's behavior. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen many editors go down the road you're currently on and none of them have come out better for it. You need to chill out and either engage in discussion or completely disengage from the situation or you will find yourself being punished by administrators. If you find the idea of talking with User:Ronz intolerable, I suggest simply removing all references you ever made to him in your user space and elsewhere and delete all discussions you had with him. Try beginning from scratch and letting bygones be bygones if you can. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please consider withdrawing the RFC/U, and talk with others about the situation instead. You're overlooking some very, very good advice from your WQA by escalating the situation with an RFC/U. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I take exception to this diffless edit. The "disingenious" remark is baseless. I am completely uninvolved in the dispute with Ronz about which you posted at WQA and I am almost uninvolved in the QW article (as anyone will tell you who has been around on that article's talk page for the last couple of months I generally avoid it like the plague due to its bizarre editing atmosphere). The rest of this edit only shows you don't know what WP:DR is. You may want to remove the edit (the discussion being closed does not mean you can't retract anything). Avb 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Replying to your post, I think this reply sums up what I think is a pretty good approach. If you'd like me to take a look at anything in particular, please let me know. It's been my experience that most editors who support a pseudoscientific point of view realize that it's not the mainstream point of view, and are open to wording that makes that clear. They just don't want the article to be derogatory. Usually some sort of compromise that doesn't hurt Wikipedia's usefulness as a reliable source can be reached. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 07:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I saw you added a comment to the Cayra talk page about the merits of keeping the article and wondered if you realised that the article had been nominated for deletion - if you want to participate in the deletion discussion you can find it here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayra. I am actually in favour of deleting it but equally am in favour of all points of view being heard in the discussion so thought I should drop you a line. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete, it was lovely to wake up this morning and find your barnstar, even more so that I am the first recipient - I am feeling very special. Thank you. nancy (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know there was some light shed on the notability of Gateway. Namely that it isn't. Given your good reputation as an editor, I'm mostly wondering what your thoughts are on the matter and if this article now qualifies for a deletion. I'd offer to rewrite it, but other editors seem reluctant to let me even touch the article without spamming my talk with Wiki Warnings. Regards, Rubydanger ( talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure de-populating the category, and removing it out from under mathematical logic was not what you had in mind when you voted to keep it. That is what certain people are planning, now that they cannot kill it. Just thought you should know what's going on. Thank you for supporting the category. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
From your latest comment on the absurd Cheeser1 WQA thread I guess that you were not aware of what exactly he was responding to. Perhaps after a quick look at this you will agree that his reply wasn't quite as absurd as it looks in its present context. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
May be sometime online? Anthon01 ( talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The text I deleted can be found at User:PeterStJohn/RFC Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As you state on your userpage that you attend or have attended Duke University, I think I see where C S is getting the idea of COI. However, I'd really appreciate your take on things over at the DMJ talk page. Please see the new section, entitled "Wikiquette mediation"... Edit Centric ( talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I'm looking at some of the other articles that you have contributed to, and I'm seeing a LOT of material that is not third-party sourced. I'm beginning to understand just why C_S felt that there was a definite COI issue, in that most of your source citations point back to Duke University sources. Pete, I know that you are an alumnus, and that in and of it's self is laudable. However, for Wikipedia standards, it's important that things can be independently backed up by sources other than Duke U. Edit Centric ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete, have you considered nominating User:Multipundit at the COI notice board in connection with super-recursive algorithms? It's hard to believe he's a disinterested editor capable of evaluating the scientific merits of this subject from a detached viewpoint. From his bad English he would seem not to be a native speaker, making it unlikely that he's Burgin's coauthor Marc L. Smith at Vassar. If either his or User:Kizeral's IP address starts 128.97. (Kizeral made a number of edits to various articles on Feb. 7, all concerning super-recursion) I'd be even more suspicious. In any event some sort of COI already seems pretty likely given the volume and content of material he's been contributing to both the article and its talk page. This article does not seem up to Wikipedia standards by a long shot. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per your request, here is my summary of the research studies in recent years that indicated that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters. [11]
I believe that this research data should not be dismissed or ignored, and that we should include this information, with the reference citations, in a section titled Homeopathic research in the Homeopathy article. Arion 3x3 ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the 3 links, now that the Homeopathy talk section has just been archived. I found a more direct hosting site for one of the references:
"Efficacy of the potentized drug, Carcinosin 200 fed alone and in combination with another drug - Chelidonium 200, in Amelioration of p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene- induced Hepatocarcinogenisis in Mice." [12]) (full text pdf: [13])
"A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice." [14] (full text pdf: [15])
"Supportive Evidence for the Anticancerous Potential of Alternative Medicine against Hepatocarcinogenesis in Mice" [16] (full text pdf: [17])
I appreciated your previous comments. Could you take a few moments to check out these links in light of your statement "I'd prefer a more direct reference, as in my example"? Thanks! Arion 3x3 ( talk) 04:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just seen your friend User:BrownHairedGirl taking part in a category discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_30#Years_in_Ireland. Remembering her "defining characteristics" opinions in the fiasco over the Erdős categories, I was utterly amazed at the side of the "discussion" she was on. I'm not suggesting you participate (I'm not going to) but you might be interested. Thincat ( talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I blocked him for edit-warring, which was brought to my attention at WP:AN/I. However, he immediately pointed out that he was not entirely at fault; another editor "trolled" him. I investigated it immediately, and unblocked him. All of that took 8 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion. Bearian ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments such as this [18] are grossly inappropriate per WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:HARASS. Please stop. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You're blocked for incivility. You are obliged to remain civil, and that includes your own talk page (and, for the avoidance of doubt, edit comments too) William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Pete, I just picked up your email (and I see you have posted it here too). I've read through it and also the threads on this page which lead to the block. I can see that there has been some provocation on this page but I also think that you will need to withdraw the comments above before you will be able to be unblocked. Once you have done that you should use this template {{unblock|your reason here}} to request the block be lifted. As you know I am very, very new to all this and am still finding my feet so I am maybe not being as WP:BOLD as I might but I am sure you will understand. In the future I would advise trying not to let them wind you up - if you don't reply then you can't be accused of incivility, just remove the posts from your talk and don't them dignify with a response. Best regards, nancy (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've looked. What you failed to mention was that the RFC was never certified. I'm not too surprised because by itself its far too unspecific. Just for fun, I tracked down the wikiquette alert that it grew from, and I've linked to that from your userify-ied RFC page (I hope thats OK, but people wouldn't find it otherwise). I didn't get much out of it, other than that you refuse to refactor incivil comments. I suggest you reconsider this policy. Refactoring is a form of apology. Wikipedia insists on civility - please see WP:NPA - and although the policy is unevenly applied you won't have a happy time if you insist that you have a right to be rude William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be helpful to actually point out the basis of my blocking. This is from Levine2112's talk:
(copy)
Addendum: I very definitely prefer open forums, such as a Wikiquette, to seeking help from allies individually, towards resolving disputes. I seek uninvolved 3rd parties. I don't expect to meet any but I seek them. Pete St.John (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(and it continues, at Levine's talk).
The first item (from SA) is what I construed to be a new instance of the (more typically Ronz-like) behaviour; a vague insinuation to a general topic of bad behaviour, without links or diffs of any specifics.
The next item expresses my opinion and uses the language which I had tailored to provoke Ronz into moving the arguement to my Talk (where he's unwelcome), while avoiding (or if you prefer, evading) actually uncivil language. That is, I expected him to move to my Talk, because he always does, because he doesn't want to actually work towards a consensus by debating facts, but instead harasses with recurrent vague insinutations away from the attention of 3rd parties. His method is that no one specific diff appears actionable. This is an important distinction: I expected him to move to my talk but I did not oblige him in any way to do so. He could make his point right there at Levine's, or he could open a Wikiquette about me. He has plenty of recourse besides spamming my talk where he knows he's unwelcome. But he has to anyway. That's his compulsion.
The next item is my pointing out the move to my talk (for concerned parties).
The next item is Avb. Which language does he object to? The language here, at Levine's talk, or the language at my talk, where I have repeatedly asked Ronz not to go, and about which I created a wikiquette and then an RfC to try and avoid? And where I resorted to definitely less civil language, in entirely appropriate anger at persistent unethical harassment? Pete St.John ( talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Last time (so far) Ronz wrote to my Talk I appealed to the admin who blocked me on Ronz's behalf, this diff at Connelley's Talk. The theory is this:
1. Connolley blocks automatically when he sees bad language (on the grounds of WP:CIVIL).
2. He does not consider Ronz unwelcome spamming of talk pages to be uncivil. (I suspect he does, I certainly consider it uncivil, but it's not my place to project. He flatly refuses to admit it, which is his prerogative.)
3. So when Ronz posts to my talk, I post to Connelly's, repeating my complaint and asking him, again, to state flatly that spamming user talk pages is not uncivil, and is not actionable.
4. If Connelley admits it's uncivil, he'd have to do something about Ronz. If he flatly denies it, he'd be open to criticism for a narrow definition of civility. So he ignores it (by repeating, "just delete it").
5. That causes Ronz to lay off from my Talk; because he's (indirectly) annoying his ally Connolley in a way that Connolley can't fix himself.
Recall that I've gone to every possible recourse to get Ronz off my Talk; I've asked him (he ignored me), I created a wikiquette (got ignored, as "too complex"), I created a RfC (also ignored, no comments at all). I think it's very important that 1) Ronz have no plausible deniabiltity about knowing I don't want him on my Talk page; 2) I've sought every civil avenue of redress, and there are none. Pete St.John ( talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the text of the email I just sent to User:Nancy, a recent Admin. I chose her not because she knows me, which she doesn't, but because she conceded a point in the process of winning a debate at which I happened to be on the other side. I had been thinking about that (the eristic editors never concede points; consensus can only be built from common ground so it's important for them to evade common ground) so I went ahead and created a barnstar, of which Nancy was the first (so far only) recipient. The point is that we have no prior history (other than being on opposite sides of one vote), she's motivated to invest time responding to me but not particuarly to blindly agree with me (not that any Admin here would, and I'll be looking for more help elsewhere). The text, which includes links (but in long form, not wiki form):
[copy, with some typography altered]
...Your IP address is [elided], and the block has been set to expire: 21:15, 8 February 2008.
Note: See below - you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email, even if blocked...
[end copy]
Hello Peter, you may feel a bit lonely in your unusual situation. So I just thought I should tell you that I am watching with some interest what's going on on your talk page. I am very sympathetic with you — it's the kind of scrape that I could get myself into as well. I agree that some of the people here who profess to be defending try to defend [edited 10:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC) after a complaint by Ronz; not sure if the original wording was fair] science aren't doing us a great service with the way they are doing it. Personally I didn't get into this fight: because I still value my time a bit more than Wikipedia, and also because I am not sufficiently sure it's not a structural problem. A lot of people appear to think that people like Ronz and ScienceApologist (who seems to have been quite civilised recently — I wouldn't be surprised to hear he is more successful that way) are needed in this position because the militancy of the other side must be matched. I have no idea if this hypothesis is true, or if it was ever tested. --
Hans Adler (
talk)
00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pete, I see you have decided to sit out the block and I respect your decision. You must though be really careful from now on as typically the length of any future block will be an increase on the last so next time it might be 48 hours or worse. I can see how frustrating this whole situation is for you but as I said last night my approach would be try really hard to ignore the provocation and maintain the moral high-ground - this is even more important now as someone might deliberately try to provoke you so that you get blocked again for longer. Best regards, nancy (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit partisan here, yes, in the sense that I know and value Ronz and SA (and certainly Crohnie also) as editors and know very little about your editing here. FWIW, I first met SA when editing on opposite sides of a debate on a pretty controversial subject, and found collaborating with him productive. But the fact that you believe my opinion of long-standing, experienced editors influenced me to speak up against your behavior as I did... speaks volumes to me. If you would care to look over my edit history, you will find that I oppose incivility regardless of POV. Also, doesn't the fact that I did not report you say something? I hoped you would take my words to heart. Instead I see continued denial. I also see you accusing Crohnie and me.
I see you believe I have been contacted by Ronz. This is factually incorrect. I have Levine2112's talk page on my watchlist and saw you respond with incivilities to a note left by SA for Levine2112. This seemed unprovoked to me so I suspected it was part of the very real flame bait campaign targeted at SA. I left a note attempting to prevent further escalation. I do not want you or anyone else blocked. I want editors to edit, not fight. Avb 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. If you read them carefully, that should explain it all. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"I might even say that a clear majority of users who log in as me tend on the whole to consider your item on equivocation to be predominately acceptable on many of it's particulars."
I'm curious as to whether there are multiple people logging in under your account. Is this just a rhetorical device, or is it actually the case? Note Wikipedia:User_account_policy#Sharing_accounts for more. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a little mess here. I complained about Ronz spamming here to Connolley, here as he had been the one to block me over it last time. I consider mere deletion (which included welcome comments by others; Ronz is the only wikipedian that I've asked, repeatedly, and formally via Wikiquette and RfC, to stay off my Talk) to obfuscate Ronz's persistent harassment, and is not a solution. Pete St.John ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[21] Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Respectable Mr. Peter St John, you wrote on my talk page:
The Amiga, and Atari ST, were fun game machines in their day. Good luck.
When you said "fun game machines" you show that unfortunately you know nothing of the use of these machines as serious computers that originated an entire generation of productivity software, new families of hardware devices, common standards in communications, etcetera.
Do not worry. A simple ignorance of the facts it is not a problem, and could be corrected by studying better the history of computing.
For example just start your check from the article Amiga software and its splitting articles to see how many serious programs were created and still being created for Amiga, and how many of these programs were then being ported with profit on other systems, such as Windows and Linux: (DPaint, Pagestream, Blender, Lightwave, Caligari 3D, 3D Terrain editors, TV Paint, etcetera.). Due to Amiga the world of 3D computer graphics was ported from mainstream firms, and universitary laboratories to the masses of users worldwide. Again check how much was useful IFF standard ubiquitous generic file-format of Amiga in the history of computing, as it generated an entire family of files with same characteristics ( GIF, TIFF, AIFF, etcetera). See about this fact this article at IBM Developers page: Standards and specs: The Interchange File Format (IFF).
And all these facts are just only a little example of how much was relevant the Amiga in the history of computing.
This looks like good material for the Amiga OS article, and not the general OS one. Also you'll want to fix up the grammar and spelling a bit ("Notheworthy [sic] to mention...").
Certain if you are unaware of the Amiga impact in the history of computing, and how much it was revolutionary its design at its time, you easily could question if it is notheworthy or not that Amiga generated an entire family of OSs.
But sure if Amiga were simply a poor "game machine" as you called it, it had had not generated all this vitality, neither the efforts for development of new OSs (an OS it is not a matter for games), and sure if Amiga was was SIMPLY a game machine it had not left any heir, neither had survived all this time since the demise of Commodore Incorporated in 1992.
Fact stated (and it is noteworthy in the world of computer technologies, and OS history) that a minor platform, without any big firm behind its shoulders producing it and supporting it on the market, and having lost its main manufacturer Commodore, then it has been capable to completely renewing itself, thanks to loyal userbase and good programmers, and finally it has being capable to generate entire family of modern OSs present on the market nowadays (for "modern" I intend that AmigaOS 4.0 has "modern" features, such as memory protection, defragments RAM while in use, and could make use of MMU and memory swapping. MorphOS it is microkernel based and has SMP capabilities, memory protection and uses ALTIVEC multimedia facitlities features of processor PPC G4. AROS, that is Open Source OS, has been the first heir of ancient AmigaOS to run on 64bit AMD X86 processors, and last month achieved also a first implementation of memory protection features).
So, with all respect, I announce you that will re-issue these news in the OS article, maybe better clarifying WHY these Amiga facts deserve to be mentioned and taking much care of the grammar and of the form (as long as my poor english could help me).
Goodbye, -- Raffaele Megabyte ( talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: By the way... "(Sic!)" in modern usage, directly from latin "Sic est!" as indicating with a point of doubt and sarcasm that a statement it is arguable and not verified, must be written into brackets with "S" uppercase, and the "!" exclamation mark)
You might also want to ask him about his past affiliations. You know, Communists, etc. Can't be too careful. (ec) on reflection, this is uncivil and I apologize.
Ronnotel (
talk)
20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by to comment on CCC.
The commentary wrt phlogiston began with the editor's lame attempt to discredit my knowledge of the topic area by comparing (a) my defence of the Penrose-Hameroff model of consciousness in the context of Consciousness causes collapse with (b) someone who would attempt to assert scientific support for the ancient and long discredited phlogiston theory.
In other words, the editor dropped by my talk page to call me an idiot because he couldn't justify himself in the debate, and was being a "sore loser". You were reading my response to this editor's condescending personal attack. As I recall, he was attempting to POV the lead with "generally derided as pseudoscience", but could not cite a consensus viewpoint to so characterize the topic. Right after that he left the topic and another editor (guess who?) picked up the ball for him. WNDL42 ( talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Pete, belated thanks for saying nice things about me over at WT:MoS. I hadn't tuned back into the discussion til now. Btw, we have some things in common: I got a master's in math, my partner went to Duke, and you and I have a similar take on a lot of wiki-issues, so feel free to give me a shout if you find yourself rowing against the current, I might be in the same boat. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, you've raised a very good point about two orthogonal (forgive my lame pun) directions developed in that article. We should definitely be clear on this, and in case of disagreement on the scope of the coverage it's always possible to fork one part out. I posted a blunt comment there ("Do not feed …) because the talk page had become flooded by quantity – not quantity nonexisting dilemma and the supposed "controversy" surrounding "Gibbs-Heaviside vectors", not to mention attempts to set physicists upon mathematicians and vice-versa, and I wanted that to stop. Legit discussion and improvement of the article should, of course, continue. Cheers, Arcfrk ( talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
NPOV [22] AN/I [23] Anthon01 ( talk) 19:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason for you to mention me here: [24] -- Ronz ( talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that you are aware of the conversation here as it pertains to our disagreement at Deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A user talk page is the primary forum for discussions with and about the specific user. While users are given a great deal of latitude on how they manage their own talk pages, it is not for their personal use. See WP:UP#OWN and WP:OWN. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Archived NB: the ANI timed out and was archived (apparently by a bot) to here Pete St.John ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The last WQA regarding Ronz and myself is now this AN/I. Pete St.John ( talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding certification. RfC certification typically requires that two people certify the basis of the dispute (I know I'm repeating myself, I'll explain!). This isn't to say that you file an RfC and someone else reads what you've written and says "Yup, dispute here." The second certifier needs to actually be a party to the dispute. Typically, disputes between two people only will fail to achieve certification. Once it has been certified, they aren't deleted but archived after a long period of inactivity. If there is someone besides yourself and Ronz involved significantly in your dispute, that person could potentially certify. Even someone on the periphery, unless certification comes up as a problem later on (once in a great while, it does). Hope this clears it up. Not to say that it might not have been ignored anyway, its hard to figure what brings in others to comment on an RfC - as far as I know, there aren't any folks dedicated to participating in conduct RfCs. Avruch T 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Peter, I've replied to your comment on Wolfram's article talk page.
Regards, Saiva suj 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I completelly share your philosophy... To the point that I developed a page to include most of the topics deletionist (which I believe are somehow the mayority, probably because of psychological transference of frustration, probably because they fear loosing control over the content, probabbly because of a good healthy reason I can't figure out, I don't know), pop-cult.org. But I still think greater things can be done here in Wikipedia.
Putting inclusionism and deletionism aside, I also think we would ald win if you join the wiki project. At least to state your opinion every now and then.
Should I include that Lucas number you mentioned in the list of related articles of the wikiproject?-- 20-dude ( talk) 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, Got your message about an edit I made linking to Duke University, but it didn't make sense to me. Could you jog my memory and tell me what article this was in? Thanks, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the Stephen Wolfram is of British Jewish descent, and there are two references that I added. It seems that you did not see the references. I could not understand why it is stated as "unreferenced". Take another look at my edit and it has two sources. Thank you. 71.175.31.106 ( talk) 21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete. Can I prevail on you to take a position on the question I raised just now concerning the second sentence of the article on lines at the bottom of that article's talk page? If you agree with Tango I won't argue the point further. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete. I added a section at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolfram%27s_2-state_3-symbol_Turing_machine . I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on this. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you are listed under Category:Wikipedians in Ohio or one of its subcategories. WikiProject Ohio has been slowing down and we're looking for active Ohioans to turn that around! But first, let us introduce ourselves; we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio and we're sure there's somewhere you'll fit in just fine. The project's departments include article quality assessment: We have over 5,000 articles to assess for class alone, newsletter writing: This has been delayed by a few months, and new page patrolling: Which has also been slowing down. We also have a newly formed taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at WP:OHTWP.
We have 132 members, many of which are not active within the project. If you are listed there and still received this message please accept the auotmated porcess's apologies. If you are interested in joining us please list you name here. If you're not interested please note this is a one time invite and you will never hear from us again.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message at our talkpage or with any member of the project, we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. We look forward to seeing you around!
Delivered by: §hepBot ( Disable) 04:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite
but in view of my effort to keep Category:Template loop warnings as empty as possible:
I am not hilarious about User:PeterStJohn/Userboxes/User Recursive. Debresser ( talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Are you from the Ohio area? A Wikipedian meetup is taking place on July 18, 2009 in Columbus. If you are interested in coming or would like more information, see the first Ohio meetup page. |
Thanks! -- Rkitko ( talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Peter! If you're still around the Columbus area, I'd like to invite you to attend Wikipedia Connection's Art+Feminism Edit-A-Thon at the Ohio State University on Saturday, March 5, from 1 - 5 PM. You may be aware of Art+Feminism, but if not, it's a global event that brings together diverse communities to create and improve Wikipedia articles related to women in the arts. The purpose of this event is to help combat the lack of coverage women and art subjects receive due to less than 10% of Wikipedia editors being women. Anyone with an interest is welcome to join, and we're expecting a good mix of students, faculty, and veteran Wikipedians. If you have any questions or are interested, just let me know. In addition to the signup page above, we have an RSVP form here. Thanks! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, PeterStJohn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | We are especially looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out newbies. If you have some free time, please sign up for a slot on the signup sheet! Further details and registration: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISMB-ECCB 2017 Editathon. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered:11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)) |
![]() | The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2017-18 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now! Articles may be claimed until 1 Dec 2017 and the competition closes on 31 Dec 2017. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference in Chicago in July 2018. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, or even consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2017-18. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)) |
![]() | The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2018 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 31 Dec 2018. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2018. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)) |
![]() | The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)) |
Hello, PeterStJohn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, this is a reminder that the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are currently calling for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. |
![]() | Hello, this is to let you know that entries for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition are closing soon! The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. |
![]() | Hello, this is to let you know that the editing deadline for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition has been extended to 28 June 2019. We encourage you to participate and make the most of this extended editing period! Remember, prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. |
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela St. John Bogger ( talk) 10:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm guessing that over the last dozen years, web pages have gone down or been paywalled or whatever, and the citations got deleted until none were left :/ I believe that I need an administrator's help to view the deleted page and it's history so I can fix it (which to me seems preferable to creating a new page). Do you have advice? I see on your page that you Watchlist user talk pages where you write things. It's been so long that I'm lucky something reminded me of the quadruple tildes :-) Pete St.John ( talk) 01:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, PeterStJohn, and welcome to Wikipedia! ...[elided conventional advice] Again, welcome! Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting us to the vandal edit on the Neuron article. I have reverted it. You can too, as with experience you will recognize it quickly. The great majority of vandalism is done by anonymous IP address editors. Hu 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, but we already have something similar ;) Have a look at meta:Toolserver. Bjelleklang - talk 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}} the page Special:WantedPages or [Special:WantedPages] appears to down; it shows zero counts. There is a note on the talk page from yesterday, so the failure seems to be about a day old. I don't have access to IIRC from this machine and didn't know a better mechanism for bringing this to the attention to someone more clueful, other than 'helpme'. Thanks. Peter H. St.John, M.S. 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have moved PeteScratchPad to User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad. Personal pages are perfectly OK but they must have the correct names. -- RHaworth 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Responded here. ike9898 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Awarded to Pete St.John for making me laugh out loud. Great humor and witty observations are always appreciated - keep it up! -- Satori Son 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
I'm still laughing about
this one! Keep up the good work and feel free to move this to your user page if you'd like. --
Satori Son
21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I'm also concerned about the Blue collar article, as I think it may be a direct cut and paste from the website about it. This could be a copyright violation in addition to sounding like an advertisement. What do you think we should do?-- Analogue Kid 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, you don't have to pipelink every time you link to everything with spaces in the name. Sample Article will land at Sample_Article, and doesn't require any piping. And mass will go to Mass just fine. The Wiki software always assumes an initial capital, so you don't have to worry about that either. ♠ P M C♠ 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
you’re right, intuition is tricky. even having slightly “improved” my intuition based on already knowing about the birthday paradox, mine still broke down, i guess due to the size of the numbers. there are, according to the main page, 1,653,406 articles. i hit “random” roughly 250 times. if you want to test your own intuition, guess what the odds are for a repeat? the answer (assuming i did the math right) is visible if you highlight between the two x’s below.
x 1.88% x
not too likely, but not lottery-ticket-buying-inducing, either.
thanks for the interesting comment. - barneca 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, this was a regular article in regular article space when I deleted it. NawlinWiki 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for your help. I was only looking at the last part of the sentence rather than the whole. The only thing I don't think is good is the pronunciation of GUI because there's really the spelling it out technique, and that's what got me. It's more of like a region's pronunciation rather than a generic one. Also, there's only one GUI per operating system. Other than that, yeah, it was a sticky fix and I've learned from it, and will let it be. Thanks for notifying me so I would know in the future to look at the whole rather than just a part of the sentence. -- Bookinvestor 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the capitalization, as it appears to be standard on wikipedia for the links section to be headed "External links". It is stated in wikipedia's Manual of Style.
TubularWorld 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick fix to the article to give his exact position & show his awards--articles like this are likely to be deleted by some of the people around here these days--you should probably add some refs to his best known papers. DGG ( talk) 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was feeling a bit befuddled by the continued insistence that I was being biased when I'm keenly aware of issues in biographies of living persons and try to report only what happened in the most neutral voice possible. Honestly, I wasn't even alive when Watergate happened, and I'm not that interested in it or anything. Just trying to keep things up to date here. I appreciate you backing me up, guess we'll just wait and see what happens.-- Analogue Kid 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to my error. I hope it is repaired now. Larry R. Holmgren 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I might apply the knife a little too liberally, but if it's worth expanding, someone else will come along and expand it, and hopefully that person won't be in the PR department. :P I cut Blue Collar Computing way back, as well. The text added had been somewhat de-POV'd, but it still read like a press release, if a slightly less enthusiastic one. kmccoy (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. The first block was only for 3 hours. This one is 24 hours. Kukini hablame aqui 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad you spotted the edit conflict and fixed it up. Cheers. Robert Brockway 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I watch the Columbus article, so I've been seeing this develop over some days. I decided that it was time to jump in, since both sides had some good points but I agreed with the majority — not to mention the idea of consensus :-) Nyttend 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You left the following message for this IP address (128.100.68.211) :
This is a public computer, so I'm unsure to what vandalism you're referring, but if you have a concern about vandalism you should definitely state what the problem is and perhaps link to the relevant page. Then perhaps someone will acknowledge your complaint and report it to some appropriate administrators, or at least make it known among frequent users of this computer. 128.100.68.211 09:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Mathematicians are getting slammed at the Deletion Review for Erdos Numbers, because people are voting to "endorse" (erdos numbers) but "endorse" means "endorse the deletion". I think you want to overturn, but only for Erdos numbers < some maximum. Thanks at least for caring, it's a mess and we need help. Pete St.John 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, two remarks. Firstly, keep Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind (I see Jc37 already mentioned this, but it bears repeating). Secondly, in reply to your remark on KSmrq's talk page: everybody can comment at the Deletion Review, not only administrators. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 12:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter: Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. To be honest, it was never a big deal for me—and it obviously is for those who care passionately about such things—so I'm happy for the category to be reinstated. After all, it doesn't hurt anything, does it! :) MeegsC | Talk 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello PeterStJohn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, after your advice about canvassing, Brownhairedgirl formally accused me of unethical canvassing, see User_talk:PeterStJohn#ANI_re_your_canvassing. I have rebutted at the link she gave. I don't have experience with wiki disputes (arbitration?) and would very much appreciate your advice about what mechanism I should seek for help. I myself believe that Brownhairedgirl has not acted in good faith, but regardless of that, I seek something like equal representation. Please let me know what I can, may, or should do to defend myself, and seek redress.
Whew. There's been a lot of text about this. Let me finish reading, and I'll get back to you soon. - jc37 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
At this writing, the vote at the deletion review is 11 "endorse" (leave the category deleted) and 19 "overturn" (restore the category). The latter includes my vote, once I realized that anyone can vote (votes are really "comments" in a conventional format). This may not get us the category back, but I think it's worthwhile to send a message, that a large user group is disappointed by the administrative fiat against a plain consensus, not merely the whims of a special interest group. Pete St.John 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this here. Wikipedia does have some element of politics, but not in the way you are trying to implement. There was no "plain consensus" about these categories; both sides have points, and the situation is not clear cut. Moreover, everyone is working for what they think is the best outcome. I'm not involved in the discussion, although I am both a mathematician and an admin. I hope you will hear my advice. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As per the above criticism. Currently, the vote is 24 overturn (restore the deleted Erdos Number categories) and still 11 endorse (leave the category deleted). All 5 of the new contributions are to overturn (which may lend credence to the "canvassing" critique), although at least one of those was monitoring the deletion reviews, not the math project. I'm particulary gratified by "outsider" editors concurring that the admin's deletion was not in accordance with policy regarding respecting consensus. Presumably the effects of canvassing will be considered to be quelled as time passes and more admins and editors weigh in on acount of the review and censure activities, and not on account of my canvassing or whatever the opposition may or may not have done or be doing. Pete St.John 21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
We get it - you have strong feelings about an ongoing DRV. However, please stop canvassing, campaigning, and "getting out the vote" at WikiProject Mathematics. It's well within accepted practice to leave a neutral message notifying a Wikiproject of an AfD or DRV, but you've gone well beyond that and are campaigning actively and disruptively. More importantly, perhaps, you've gone beyond the point where you're doing your cause any favors. I'm going to ask you to please stop any and all posts related to the DRV and confine whatever comments you have to the DRV page itself. The Wikiproject has been suitably notified, and the discussion on AN/I will attract additional opinions. If you continue campaigning, vote-counting, and aruging your case outside the DRV, particularly using the sort of uncivil language cited by User:BrownHairedGirl, then you're likely to be blocked at least for the duration of the deletion review for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. MastCell Talk 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked until the DRV discussion is closed. - jc37 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, at my talk page you wrote:
I take it that your opinion is that I am (to some significant extent) disrupting Wikipedia. These points:
Thanks. Pete St.John 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In a vote, such as real-world politics, only the final numbers matter, and vigorous efforts to bring in votes for your side (within the law) are acceptable. Wikipedia does not work that way; matters are decided either by consensus or by Jimbo. Consensus requires a process in which we get a feel for the views of the community. Ideally, we would announce as widely as possible: "A discussion is in progress; come have your say", then sit back and listen.
The ideal is rarely met, so we try to balance out distorting influences. Your exhortations to overturn the Erdős number category deletions will be treated as a distortion, and will cause voices that support overturning to be given less weight. If you persist, it also causes people to view you as an unreliable source. In other words, the more you lobby, the more it hurts your cause!
In fact, the DRV uses the consensus process to review the deletion process. It is not about the merits of deleting or keeping the categories. It is about the debate and the close. Did the decision involve too much shouting? Was consensus found? Was it followed? Was policy followed? In short, the review seeks to decide if the process of deciding on deletion meets Wikipedia standards. Repetitive lobbying is frowned upon for deletion debates, but it happens; for deletion reviews, which attempt to correct for such debates, lobbying is one of the worst things you can do.
It gets worse. The cause you support involves WikiProject Mathematics, so fairly or not your behavior shapes Wikipedia-wide perceptions of the mathematics community. If your zeal causes you to be perceived as a crank, some of that will spill over to cause all mathematicians and any cause we support to be taken less seriously.
Please, for your own good, for the good of your cause, for the good of the mathematics community, and for the good of Wikipedia, think about what I have said and act appropriately.
(No reply is necessary; but please reply here if you must.) -- KSmrq T 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Have a nice weekend! -- Ramsey2006 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My advice at this point is that you just make your points on the page of the new DRV. I would also suggest that any comments that you make be made at the first level (ie: at the bottom of the discussion without indentation). Don't let yourself be baited into a back and forth with either SparsityProblem or BrownHairedGirl. (Note that I have not replied to BHG's indented response to me. If I do feel the need to reply to a particular point of either of them, I will do so as a comment at the first level, without indentation.) The tactics of both of them seems to be to attempt to fill whatever page the discussion is occuring on with an everywhere dense set of repeditive comments. No point in doing anything that will help to facilitate that strategy.
I also suggest that nobody be notified individually of this new DRV. I did put a notice on the wikipedia logic project talk page and the talk page of the 3rd CfD discussion, and the math project has been notified. But I have avoided even notifying you of the overturning of the overturn after my initial note, figuring that you would find out on your own when you get back, and to avoid any accusations from BHG or Sparsity.
At this point, I would think that any closing admin would be well aware of the existence of previous discussions in the previous DRV, the 3 CfD's and the discussion on the talk page of the 3rd CfD. User:Kbdank71 himself has rather amusingly and ironically pointed out himself a rather blatant flaw in one of his own stated reasons for deleting the categories without consensus here: [1] This has not escaped notice, as several comments on the page seem to be making reference to it, some more directly than others. -- Ramsey2006 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(copied from User talk:KSmrq to keep thread here)
Thanks for notifying me that after the Deletion Review was overturned, it was then rescinded. I appreciate all the recent advice about what I was doing wrong, but in the face of this scale (and energy) of attack, I really could use advice about what I am permitted to do to defend against this attack. For example, can I, or should I, ask for arbitration? I can't believe that I'm not allowed to seek help, but must wait for others to notice I need it. And I do mean me personally, now I have to defend myself, not just the mathematician user community. Pete St.John 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, I see at the archived ANI concerning me, that
Am I correct that you archived the ANI item at this point, and your final comment is in the nature of "closing"? I'll be trying to work out the chronology of: warning me about campaigning, my responses (at each stage), warning me about banning, the opening of the ANI, admin actions on the Deletion Reviews, and this ANI getting archived with that conclusion. Roughly, all this happened withing a period of four days. I'm watching this page but you are welcome to move this to my page according to your preference. Thanks, Pete St.John 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a cross-posting with my own talk page:
Again, cross-posted:
Thanks v much for your kind note on my talk page, which I missed in the deluge. I started to write a quick reply, but since I'm not much good at brevity, it ended up being rather a long one. If you have a spare week or two, you might like to take a peep: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#One_small_concilliatory_note.
Thanks again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I can provide detailed information (with citations) of the application of Genetic Algorithms in hardware bug finding. However, I am working full time and currently very busy, this means I'll be able to come back to this issue on the weekend. Meanwhile, why not keep my edit and tag it with "citation needed"?. Thanks.---- A. S. Aulakh Talk 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and interesting discussion. I have read your input on GA and very imprest, it's nice to meat some one how seems to like it as much as I do :) GA Fantastic ( talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In your response to the Quackwatch RfC, you made a suggestion to use original research in the Quackwatch article. It's a strange recommendation, don't you think? Ante lan talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
I hereby award the Barnstar of Peace to PeterStJohn who helped negotiate a hopefully peaceful resolution to a longstanding debate. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
I really appreciate what you're trying to do with comments such as this [2]. You're trying to calm the situation, that's clear. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you remove and apologize for the following, "I consider your pugnaciousness to be misguided and disruptive" and "(over and over again; which is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing|tendentious)".
I suggest you delete your /ScratchPad notes about me, and discuss the matters with me instead. I hope this is specific enough for you. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did you receive this appeal for help that you refer to? ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As you claim here, it would be nice if you provided the diff. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. However, this is Wikipedia and criticisms of people's ideas and attempts happen all the time. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. I note that you had no way of knowing that the consensus was fake as you did not know the personalities or the sides involved at the time. You seem to make a singular point that people should be aware that QW is not peer-reviewed because QW discusses peer-review itself: however, such a criticism is not good for Wikipedia unless it can be directly sourced. I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot or some other blog-forum. That seems to fly in the face of all sourcing conventions at Wikipedia You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain? ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Citing a reference for my claim that you accused me of tendentious editting. I overgeneralized the word; using it to characterize your characterization of me. So I'm trying to go through QW talk to piece together specifics, then explain myself at the ANI with them. One might note, that "I was a little appalled that there were recommendations to manufacture sources by posting to Slashdot" could be construed as implying my contribution was contrary to wiki policy, an example of what I overgeneralized as "tendentious" (when really I was thinking "contentious", btw). You may have had a good point there.
2. Citing a reference to the "request for help" I mentioned. It's this RFC. You may notice that my first edit to QW:talk was in the section labelled "A user has requested...".
3. Are you accusing me of being an alt-med-POV pusher?
4. I do, in fact, know why I have problems with you. (By knowledge I refer to sporadic proximate causes, in your editting, which I am working to document; I only have hypotheses about your philosophy or raison detre). I'm working on documenting it. Pete St.John ( talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Responses:
Cheers,
ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have restated the different versions in a section at the bottom of the page. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A example where "to represent" ≠ to "be representative of": in a logic formula a tilde may represent negation, but it is not representative of negation. Although there is overlap in the meanings, I see the following difference when an entity represents / is representative of a group. The adjective "representative" followed by "of" suggests that the entity representing the group somehow typifies it. This is especially clear when an entity is said not to be representative of a group. This suggestion is not present, or much less so, when a form of the verb "to represent" is used.
The combination "If [hypothesis], then [consequence]", all in the indicative mood, is standard use in mathematical discourse, and generally completely accepted (except by you). The subjunctive "were" signals a counterfactual (as opposed to merely hypothetical) situation; its use for a non-counterfactual protasis is often regarded as ungrammatical; see Subjunctive#To express a hypothesis. The word "if" neutrally introduces a protasis; "when" unnecessarily suggests a temporal aspect and is definitely much less usual in mathematical discourse. -- Lambiam 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary has: "A number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function." Do you feel it would help to replace "to be representative of" by "to typify"? I don't think this verb has a clear connotation of membership. --
Lambiam
22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit looks to be escalating problems with me on other people's talk pages. Please consider refactoring: [6] -- Ronz ( talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I really didn't mean to change your page, I thought I was at QW page at the time and I guess I didn't go back to the page when I linked to yours to see what it was about. Thanks for pointing it out. If I do bloopers of any kind please don't ever hesitate in letting me know. I take suggestion and info too so I don't repeat and/or I get more opinions. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Please consider refactoring: [7] -- Ronz ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed your comment as canvassing [8]. Further, it is an inappropriate forum for discussing other editor's behavior. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've seen many editors go down the road you're currently on and none of them have come out better for it. You need to chill out and either engage in discussion or completely disengage from the situation or you will find yourself being punished by administrators. If you find the idea of talking with User:Ronz intolerable, I suggest simply removing all references you ever made to him in your user space and elsewhere and delete all discussions you had with him. Try beginning from scratch and letting bygones be bygones if you can. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please consider withdrawing the RFC/U, and talk with others about the situation instead. You're overlooking some very, very good advice from your WQA by escalating the situation with an RFC/U. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I take exception to this diffless edit. The "disingenious" remark is baseless. I am completely uninvolved in the dispute with Ronz about which you posted at WQA and I am almost uninvolved in the QW article (as anyone will tell you who has been around on that article's talk page for the last couple of months I generally avoid it like the plague due to its bizarre editing atmosphere). The rest of this edit only shows you don't know what WP:DR is. You may want to remove the edit (the discussion being closed does not mean you can't retract anything). Avb 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Replying to your post, I think this reply sums up what I think is a pretty good approach. If you'd like me to take a look at anything in particular, please let me know. It's been my experience that most editors who support a pseudoscientific point of view realize that it's not the mainstream point of view, and are open to wording that makes that clear. They just don't want the article to be derogatory. Usually some sort of compromise that doesn't hurt Wikipedia's usefulness as a reliable source can be reached. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 07:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I saw you added a comment to the Cayra talk page about the merits of keeping the article and wondered if you realised that the article had been nominated for deletion - if you want to participate in the deletion discussion you can find it here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayra. I am actually in favour of deleting it but equally am in favour of all points of view being heard in the discussion so thought I should drop you a line. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete, it was lovely to wake up this morning and find your barnstar, even more so that I am the first recipient - I am feeling very special. Thank you. nancy (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know there was some light shed on the notability of Gateway. Namely that it isn't. Given your good reputation as an editor, I'm mostly wondering what your thoughts are on the matter and if this article now qualifies for a deletion. I'd offer to rewrite it, but other editors seem reluctant to let me even touch the article without spamming my talk with Wiki Warnings. Regards, Rubydanger ( talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I am pretty sure de-populating the category, and removing it out from under mathematical logic was not what you had in mind when you voted to keep it. That is what certain people are planning, now that they cannot kill it. Just thought you should know what's going on. Thank you for supporting the category. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
From your latest comment on the absurd Cheeser1 WQA thread I guess that you were not aware of what exactly he was responding to. Perhaps after a quick look at this you will agree that his reply wasn't quite as absurd as it looks in its present context. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
May be sometime online? Anthon01 ( talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The text I deleted can be found at User:PeterStJohn/RFC Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As you state on your userpage that you attend or have attended Duke University, I think I see where C S is getting the idea of COI. However, I'd really appreciate your take on things over at the DMJ talk page. Please see the new section, entitled "Wikiquette mediation"... Edit Centric ( talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I'm looking at some of the other articles that you have contributed to, and I'm seeing a LOT of material that is not third-party sourced. I'm beginning to understand just why C_S felt that there was a definite COI issue, in that most of your source citations point back to Duke University sources. Pete, I know that you are an alumnus, and that in and of it's self is laudable. However, for Wikipedia standards, it's important that things can be independently backed up by sources other than Duke U. Edit Centric ( talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete, have you considered nominating User:Multipundit at the COI notice board in connection with super-recursive algorithms? It's hard to believe he's a disinterested editor capable of evaluating the scientific merits of this subject from a detached viewpoint. From his bad English he would seem not to be a native speaker, making it unlikely that he's Burgin's coauthor Marc L. Smith at Vassar. If either his or User:Kizeral's IP address starts 128.97. (Kizeral made a number of edits to various articles on Feb. 7, all concerning super-recursion) I'd be even more suspicious. In any event some sort of COI already seems pretty likely given the volume and content of material he's been contributing to both the article and its talk page. This article does not seem up to Wikipedia standards by a long shot. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per your request, here is my summary of the research studies in recent years that indicated that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters. [11]
I believe that this research data should not be dismissed or ignored, and that we should include this information, with the reference citations, in a section titled Homeopathic research in the Homeopathy article. Arion 3x3 ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the 3 links, now that the Homeopathy talk section has just been archived. I found a more direct hosting site for one of the references:
"Efficacy of the potentized drug, Carcinosin 200 fed alone and in combination with another drug - Chelidonium 200, in Amelioration of p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene- induced Hepatocarcinogenisis in Mice." [12]) (full text pdf: [13])
"A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice." [14] (full text pdf: [15])
"Supportive Evidence for the Anticancerous Potential of Alternative Medicine against Hepatocarcinogenesis in Mice" [16] (full text pdf: [17])
I appreciated your previous comments. Could you take a few moments to check out these links in light of your statement "I'd prefer a more direct reference, as in my example"? Thanks! Arion 3x3 ( talk) 04:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just seen your friend User:BrownHairedGirl taking part in a category discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_30#Years_in_Ireland. Remembering her "defining characteristics" opinions in the fiasco over the Erdős categories, I was utterly amazed at the side of the "discussion" she was on. I'm not suggesting you participate (I'm not going to) but you might be interested. Thincat ( talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I blocked him for edit-warring, which was brought to my attention at WP:AN/I. However, he immediately pointed out that he was not entirely at fault; another editor "trolled" him. I investigated it immediately, and unblocked him. All of that took 8 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion. Bearian ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments such as this [18] are grossly inappropriate per WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:HARASS. Please stop. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You're blocked for incivility. You are obliged to remain civil, and that includes your own talk page (and, for the avoidance of doubt, edit comments too) William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Pete, I just picked up your email (and I see you have posted it here too). I've read through it and also the threads on this page which lead to the block. I can see that there has been some provocation on this page but I also think that you will need to withdraw the comments above before you will be able to be unblocked. Once you have done that you should use this template {{unblock|your reason here}} to request the block be lifted. As you know I am very, very new to all this and am still finding my feet so I am maybe not being as WP:BOLD as I might but I am sure you will understand. In the future I would advise trying not to let them wind you up - if you don't reply then you can't be accused of incivility, just remove the posts from your talk and don't them dignify with a response. Best regards, nancy (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've looked. What you failed to mention was that the RFC was never certified. I'm not too surprised because by itself its far too unspecific. Just for fun, I tracked down the wikiquette alert that it grew from, and I've linked to that from your userify-ied RFC page (I hope thats OK, but people wouldn't find it otherwise). I didn't get much out of it, other than that you refuse to refactor incivil comments. I suggest you reconsider this policy. Refactoring is a form of apology. Wikipedia insists on civility - please see WP:NPA - and although the policy is unevenly applied you won't have a happy time if you insist that you have a right to be rude William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be helpful to actually point out the basis of my blocking. This is from Levine2112's talk:
(copy)
Addendum: I very definitely prefer open forums, such as a Wikiquette, to seeking help from allies individually, towards resolving disputes. I seek uninvolved 3rd parties. I don't expect to meet any but I seek them. Pete St.John (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(and it continues, at Levine's talk).
The first item (from SA) is what I construed to be a new instance of the (more typically Ronz-like) behaviour; a vague insinuation to a general topic of bad behaviour, without links or diffs of any specifics.
The next item expresses my opinion and uses the language which I had tailored to provoke Ronz into moving the arguement to my Talk (where he's unwelcome), while avoiding (or if you prefer, evading) actually uncivil language. That is, I expected him to move to my Talk, because he always does, because he doesn't want to actually work towards a consensus by debating facts, but instead harasses with recurrent vague insinutations away from the attention of 3rd parties. His method is that no one specific diff appears actionable. This is an important distinction: I expected him to move to my talk but I did not oblige him in any way to do so. He could make his point right there at Levine's, or he could open a Wikiquette about me. He has plenty of recourse besides spamming my talk where he knows he's unwelcome. But he has to anyway. That's his compulsion.
The next item is my pointing out the move to my talk (for concerned parties).
The next item is Avb. Which language does he object to? The language here, at Levine's talk, or the language at my talk, where I have repeatedly asked Ronz not to go, and about which I created a wikiquette and then an RfC to try and avoid? And where I resorted to definitely less civil language, in entirely appropriate anger at persistent unethical harassment? Pete St.John ( talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Last time (so far) Ronz wrote to my Talk I appealed to the admin who blocked me on Ronz's behalf, this diff at Connelley's Talk. The theory is this:
1. Connolley blocks automatically when he sees bad language (on the grounds of WP:CIVIL).
2. He does not consider Ronz unwelcome spamming of talk pages to be uncivil. (I suspect he does, I certainly consider it uncivil, but it's not my place to project. He flatly refuses to admit it, which is his prerogative.)
3. So when Ronz posts to my talk, I post to Connelly's, repeating my complaint and asking him, again, to state flatly that spamming user talk pages is not uncivil, and is not actionable.
4. If Connelley admits it's uncivil, he'd have to do something about Ronz. If he flatly denies it, he'd be open to criticism for a narrow definition of civility. So he ignores it (by repeating, "just delete it").
5. That causes Ronz to lay off from my Talk; because he's (indirectly) annoying his ally Connolley in a way that Connolley can't fix himself.
Recall that I've gone to every possible recourse to get Ronz off my Talk; I've asked him (he ignored me), I created a wikiquette (got ignored, as "too complex"), I created a RfC (also ignored, no comments at all). I think it's very important that 1) Ronz have no plausible deniabiltity about knowing I don't want him on my Talk page; 2) I've sought every civil avenue of redress, and there are none. Pete St.John ( talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the text of the email I just sent to User:Nancy, a recent Admin. I chose her not because she knows me, which she doesn't, but because she conceded a point in the process of winning a debate at which I happened to be on the other side. I had been thinking about that (the eristic editors never concede points; consensus can only be built from common ground so it's important for them to evade common ground) so I went ahead and created a barnstar, of which Nancy was the first (so far only) recipient. The point is that we have no prior history (other than being on opposite sides of one vote), she's motivated to invest time responding to me but not particuarly to blindly agree with me (not that any Admin here would, and I'll be looking for more help elsewhere). The text, which includes links (but in long form, not wiki form):
[copy, with some typography altered]
...Your IP address is [elided], and the block has been set to expire: 21:15, 8 February 2008.
Note: See below - you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email, even if blocked...
[end copy]
Hello Peter, you may feel a bit lonely in your unusual situation. So I just thought I should tell you that I am watching with some interest what's going on on your talk page. I am very sympathetic with you — it's the kind of scrape that I could get myself into as well. I agree that some of the people here who profess to be defending try to defend [edited 10:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC) after a complaint by Ronz; not sure if the original wording was fair] science aren't doing us a great service with the way they are doing it. Personally I didn't get into this fight: because I still value my time a bit more than Wikipedia, and also because I am not sufficiently sure it's not a structural problem. A lot of people appear to think that people like Ronz and ScienceApologist (who seems to have been quite civilised recently — I wouldn't be surprised to hear he is more successful that way) are needed in this position because the militancy of the other side must be matched. I have no idea if this hypothesis is true, or if it was ever tested. --
Hans Adler (
talk)
00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pete, I see you have decided to sit out the block and I respect your decision. You must though be really careful from now on as typically the length of any future block will be an increase on the last so next time it might be 48 hours or worse. I can see how frustrating this whole situation is for you but as I said last night my approach would be try really hard to ignore the provocation and maintain the moral high-ground - this is even more important now as someone might deliberately try to provoke you so that you get blocked again for longer. Best regards, nancy (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit partisan here, yes, in the sense that I know and value Ronz and SA (and certainly Crohnie also) as editors and know very little about your editing here. FWIW, I first met SA when editing on opposite sides of a debate on a pretty controversial subject, and found collaborating with him productive. But the fact that you believe my opinion of long-standing, experienced editors influenced me to speak up against your behavior as I did... speaks volumes to me. If you would care to look over my edit history, you will find that I oppose incivility regardless of POV. Also, doesn't the fact that I did not report you say something? I hoped you would take my words to heart. Instead I see continued denial. I also see you accusing Crohnie and me.
I see you believe I have been contacted by Ronz. This is factually incorrect. I have Levine2112's talk page on my watchlist and saw you respond with incivilities to a note left by SA for Levine2112. This seemed unprovoked to me so I suspected it was part of the very real flame bait campaign targeted at SA. I left a note attempting to prevent further escalation. I do not want you or anyone else blocked. I want editors to edit, not fight. Avb 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. If you read them carefully, that should explain it all. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"I might even say that a clear majority of users who log in as me tend on the whole to consider your item on equivocation to be predominately acceptable on many of it's particulars."
I'm curious as to whether there are multiple people logging in under your account. Is this just a rhetorical device, or is it actually the case? Note Wikipedia:User_account_policy#Sharing_accounts for more. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a little mess here. I complained about Ronz spamming here to Connolley, here as he had been the one to block me over it last time. I consider mere deletion (which included welcome comments by others; Ronz is the only wikipedian that I've asked, repeatedly, and formally via Wikiquette and RfC, to stay off my Talk) to obfuscate Ronz's persistent harassment, and is not a solution. Pete St.John ( talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[21] Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Respectable Mr. Peter St John, you wrote on my talk page:
The Amiga, and Atari ST, were fun game machines in their day. Good luck.
When you said "fun game machines" you show that unfortunately you know nothing of the use of these machines as serious computers that originated an entire generation of productivity software, new families of hardware devices, common standards in communications, etcetera.
Do not worry. A simple ignorance of the facts it is not a problem, and could be corrected by studying better the history of computing.
For example just start your check from the article Amiga software and its splitting articles to see how many serious programs were created and still being created for Amiga, and how many of these programs were then being ported with profit on other systems, such as Windows and Linux: (DPaint, Pagestream, Blender, Lightwave, Caligari 3D, 3D Terrain editors, TV Paint, etcetera.). Due to Amiga the world of 3D computer graphics was ported from mainstream firms, and universitary laboratories to the masses of users worldwide. Again check how much was useful IFF standard ubiquitous generic file-format of Amiga in the history of computing, as it generated an entire family of files with same characteristics ( GIF, TIFF, AIFF, etcetera). See about this fact this article at IBM Developers page: Standards and specs: The Interchange File Format (IFF).
And all these facts are just only a little example of how much was relevant the Amiga in the history of computing.
This looks like good material for the Amiga OS article, and not the general OS one. Also you'll want to fix up the grammar and spelling a bit ("Notheworthy [sic] to mention...").
Certain if you are unaware of the Amiga impact in the history of computing, and how much it was revolutionary its design at its time, you easily could question if it is notheworthy or not that Amiga generated an entire family of OSs.
But sure if Amiga were simply a poor "game machine" as you called it, it had had not generated all this vitality, neither the efforts for development of new OSs (an OS it is not a matter for games), and sure if Amiga was was SIMPLY a game machine it had not left any heir, neither had survived all this time since the demise of Commodore Incorporated in 1992.
Fact stated (and it is noteworthy in the world of computer technologies, and OS history) that a minor platform, without any big firm behind its shoulders producing it and supporting it on the market, and having lost its main manufacturer Commodore, then it has been capable to completely renewing itself, thanks to loyal userbase and good programmers, and finally it has being capable to generate entire family of modern OSs present on the market nowadays (for "modern" I intend that AmigaOS 4.0 has "modern" features, such as memory protection, defragments RAM while in use, and could make use of MMU and memory swapping. MorphOS it is microkernel based and has SMP capabilities, memory protection and uses ALTIVEC multimedia facitlities features of processor PPC G4. AROS, that is Open Source OS, has been the first heir of ancient AmigaOS to run on 64bit AMD X86 processors, and last month achieved also a first implementation of memory protection features).
So, with all respect, I announce you that will re-issue these news in the OS article, maybe better clarifying WHY these Amiga facts deserve to be mentioned and taking much care of the grammar and of the form (as long as my poor english could help me).
Goodbye, -- Raffaele Megabyte ( talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: By the way... "(Sic!)" in modern usage, directly from latin "Sic est!" as indicating with a point of doubt and sarcasm that a statement it is arguable and not verified, must be written into brackets with "S" uppercase, and the "!" exclamation mark)
You might also want to ask him about his past affiliations. You know, Communists, etc. Can't be too careful. (ec) on reflection, this is uncivil and I apologize.
Ronnotel (
talk)
20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by to comment on CCC.
The commentary wrt phlogiston began with the editor's lame attempt to discredit my knowledge of the topic area by comparing (a) my defence of the Penrose-Hameroff model of consciousness in the context of Consciousness causes collapse with (b) someone who would attempt to assert scientific support for the ancient and long discredited phlogiston theory.
In other words, the editor dropped by my talk page to call me an idiot because he couldn't justify himself in the debate, and was being a "sore loser". You were reading my response to this editor's condescending personal attack. As I recall, he was attempting to POV the lead with "generally derided as pseudoscience", but could not cite a consensus viewpoint to so characterize the topic. Right after that he left the topic and another editor (guess who?) picked up the ball for him. WNDL42 ( talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Pete, belated thanks for saying nice things about me over at WT:MoS. I hadn't tuned back into the discussion til now. Btw, we have some things in common: I got a master's in math, my partner went to Duke, and you and I have a similar take on a lot of wiki-issues, so feel free to give me a shout if you find yourself rowing against the current, I might be in the same boat. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, you've raised a very good point about two orthogonal (forgive my lame pun) directions developed in that article. We should definitely be clear on this, and in case of disagreement on the scope of the coverage it's always possible to fork one part out. I posted a blunt comment there ("Do not feed …) because the talk page had become flooded by quantity – not quantity nonexisting dilemma and the supposed "controversy" surrounding "Gibbs-Heaviside vectors", not to mention attempts to set physicists upon mathematicians and vice-versa, and I wanted that to stop. Legit discussion and improvement of the article should, of course, continue. Cheers, Arcfrk ( talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
NPOV [22] AN/I [23] Anthon01 ( talk) 19:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason for you to mention me here: [24] -- Ronz ( talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that you are aware of the conversation here as it pertains to our disagreement at Deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A user talk page is the primary forum for discussions with and about the specific user. While users are given a great deal of latitude on how they manage their own talk pages, it is not for their personal use. See WP:UP#OWN and WP:OWN. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Archived NB: the ANI timed out and was archived (apparently by a bot) to here Pete St.John ( talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The last WQA regarding Ronz and myself is now this AN/I. Pete St.John ( talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding certification. RfC certification typically requires that two people certify the basis of the dispute (I know I'm repeating myself, I'll explain!). This isn't to say that you file an RfC and someone else reads what you've written and says "Yup, dispute here." The second certifier needs to actually be a party to the dispute. Typically, disputes between two people only will fail to achieve certification. Once it has been certified, they aren't deleted but archived after a long period of inactivity. If there is someone besides yourself and Ronz involved significantly in your dispute, that person could potentially certify. Even someone on the periphery, unless certification comes up as a problem later on (once in a great while, it does). Hope this clears it up. Not to say that it might not have been ignored anyway, its hard to figure what brings in others to comment on an RfC - as far as I know, there aren't any folks dedicated to participating in conduct RfCs. Avruch T 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Peter, I've replied to your comment on Wolfram's article talk page.
Regards, Saiva suj 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I completelly share your philosophy... To the point that I developed a page to include most of the topics deletionist (which I believe are somehow the mayority, probably because of psychological transference of frustration, probably because they fear loosing control over the content, probabbly because of a good healthy reason I can't figure out, I don't know), pop-cult.org. But I still think greater things can be done here in Wikipedia.
Putting inclusionism and deletionism aside, I also think we would ald win if you join the wiki project. At least to state your opinion every now and then.
Should I include that Lucas number you mentioned in the list of related articles of the wikiproject?-- 20-dude ( talk) 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, Got your message about an edit I made linking to Duke University, but it didn't make sense to me. Could you jog my memory and tell me what article this was in? Thanks, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the Stephen Wolfram is of British Jewish descent, and there are two references that I added. It seems that you did not see the references. I could not understand why it is stated as "unreferenced". Take another look at my edit and it has two sources. Thank you. 71.175.31.106 ( talk) 21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete. Can I prevail on you to take a position on the question I raised just now concerning the second sentence of the article on lines at the bottom of that article's talk page? If you agree with Tango I won't argue the point further. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 07:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete. I added a section at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolfram%27s_2-state_3-symbol_Turing_machine . I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on this. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you are listed under Category:Wikipedians in Ohio or one of its subcategories. WikiProject Ohio has been slowing down and we're looking for active Ohioans to turn that around! But first, let us introduce ourselves; we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio and we're sure there's somewhere you'll fit in just fine. The project's departments include article quality assessment: We have over 5,000 articles to assess for class alone, newsletter writing: This has been delayed by a few months, and new page patrolling: Which has also been slowing down. We also have a newly formed taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at WP:OHTWP.
We have 132 members, many of which are not active within the project. If you are listed there and still received this message please accept the auotmated porcess's apologies. If you are interested in joining us please list you name here. If you're not interested please note this is a one time invite and you will never hear from us again.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message at our talkpage or with any member of the project, we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. We look forward to seeing you around!
Delivered by: §hepBot ( Disable) 04:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite
but in view of my effort to keep Category:Template loop warnings as empty as possible:
I am not hilarious about User:PeterStJohn/Userboxes/User Recursive. Debresser ( talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Are you from the Ohio area? A Wikipedian meetup is taking place on July 18, 2009 in Columbus. If you are interested in coming or would like more information, see the first Ohio meetup page. |
Thanks! -- Rkitko ( talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Peter! If you're still around the Columbus area, I'd like to invite you to attend Wikipedia Connection's Art+Feminism Edit-A-Thon at the Ohio State University on Saturday, March 5, from 1 - 5 PM. You may be aware of Art+Feminism, but if not, it's a global event that brings together diverse communities to create and improve Wikipedia articles related to women in the arts. The purpose of this event is to help combat the lack of coverage women and art subjects receive due to less than 10% of Wikipedia editors being women. Anyone with an interest is welcome to join, and we're expecting a good mix of students, faculty, and veteran Wikipedians. If you have any questions or are interested, just let me know. In addition to the signup page above, we have an RSVP form here. Thanks! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, PeterStJohn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | We are especially looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out newbies. If you have some free time, please sign up for a slot on the signup sheet! Further details and registration: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISMB-ECCB 2017 Editathon. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered:11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)) |
![]() | The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2017-18 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now! Articles may be claimed until 1 Dec 2017 and the competition closes on 31 Dec 2017. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference in Chicago in July 2018. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, or even consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2017-18. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)) |
![]() | The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2018 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 31 Dec 2018. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/ISCB competition announcement 2018. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)) |
![]() | The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. (Message delivered: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)) |
Hello, PeterStJohn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, this is a reminder that the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are currently calling for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. |
![]() | Hello, this is to let you know that entries for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition are closing soon! The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019. For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. |
![]() | Hello, this is to let you know that the editing deadline for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition has been extended to 28 June 2019. We encourage you to participate and make the most of this extended editing period! Remember, prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment. Further details may be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computational Biology/8th ISCB Wikipedia competition announcement. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings from WikiProject Computational Biology, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. |
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela St. John Bogger ( talk) 10:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm guessing that over the last dozen years, web pages have gone down or been paywalled or whatever, and the citations got deleted until none were left :/ I believe that I need an administrator's help to view the deleted page and it's history so I can fix it (which to me seems preferable to creating a new page). Do you have advice? I see on your page that you Watchlist user talk pages where you write things. It's been so long that I'm lucky something reminded me of the quadruple tildes :-) Pete St.John ( talk) 01:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)